What does it mean to you to be English?

[ks.234]

we are.

I'm not ridiculing anything. I'm pointing out that pre IR agriculture wasnt any sort of idyll for those involved.

Nobody said it was

Precisely. We now feed a population of 65 million compared to a fraction of that.

as opposed to the wealth being in the hands of the Duke of Whatsit.

How about moving forward? The problem is precisely that we had a government policy dictated by the needs of the market. We had a brief flirtation with turning it to the needs people as democracy grew in strength, but now we’ve reverted to the market led model.

Economics is about who gets what and currently it is going to those with most to gain from a market led economy

Yes.

And the one that we have had a century or two and a couple of wars to correct.

It is. A century or two after the IR.

Yes. The Industrial Revolution is far too compromised to be something worthy of pride. That does not make it something worthy of shame either. It is what it is; a part of our history with it’s actors, mechanisms, events, ideas and consequences.

 

[paulfromcamden]

Agreed. None of this happened in a vacuum. I'm lauding the IR while acknowledging that it happened alongside and was inextricably interwoven with the less positive and frequently shameful aspects of our past.

It's interesting. The ingenuity and engineering of the industrial revolution is incredible. But my understanding is that Britain wasn't the first nation to industrialise because being good at engineering is an inherently 'British' or 'English' characteristic.

It had more to do with the conditions being in place - international trade (including in enslaved human beings) generated large amounts of capital that could be invested in machinery and Britains colonisation of other nations gave it a large market for it's goods, which it protected by force to exclude competition.

 

[ks.234]

Thanks for "deracinated," I can't remember reading it before but it is a good word!

One aspect that springs to mind is that Britain's early IR, combined with its global empire, was what made Britain rich enough to afford an efficient NHS.

Yes. This is entirely true.

It is true that the Industrial Revolution is one of the things that made is so very rich.

It is also true that it is morally compromised by it’s past

And it is also true that the NHS is a moral, economic and social good that is the most democratic thing we’ve done since the Great Reform Act.

We really should be taking better care of it.

 

[stevec67]

It's interesting. The ingenuity and engineering of the industrial revolution is incredible. But my understanding is that Britain wasn't the first nation to industrialise because being good at engineering is an inherently 'British' or 'English' characteristic.

It had more to do with the conditions being in place - international trade (including in enslaved human beings) generated large amounts of capital that could be invested in machinery and Britains colonisation of other nations gave it a large market for it's goods, which it protected by force to exclude competition.

It's complex and nuanced. Let's not disregard the happy accident of being built on coal which gave us a means of powering all this industry and wealth. Rather like the oil nations in the ME have enjoyed fabulous wealth in the last century or so. However I do think that the British are, or were, inherently good at engineering. The German s are also. The Greeks and Romans enjoyed fabulous wealth, what happened to their empires?

 

[stevec67]

Yes. The Industrial Revolution is far too compromised to be something worthy of pride.

no it's not.

That does not make it something worthy of shame either. It is what it is; a part of our history with it’s actors, mechanisms, events, ideas and consequences.

I've said many times that it didn't happen in a vacuum. Once more, with feeling...

 

[paulfromcamden]

It's complex and nuanced. Let's not disregard the happy accident of being built on coal which gave us a means of powering all this industry and wealth. Rather like the oil nations in the ME have enjoyed fabulous wealth in the last century or so. However I do think that the British are, or were, inherently good at engineering. The German s are also. The Greeks and Romans enjoyed fabulous wealth, what happened to their empires?

Yes shedloads of cheap coal also helped!

A small Greek and Roman elite enjoyed fabulous wealth. Most people did not. And they were both societies requiring the enslavement of people to function. I'm not keen on empires.

 

[Finnegan]

I'm not ridiculing anything. I'm pointing out that pre IR agriculture wasnt any sort of idyll for those involved.

Nobody is saying it was so I’m not sure what point you’re responding to.

as opposed to the wealth being in the hands of the Duke of Whatsit.

The point I’m making is that the benefits of the Industrial Revolution were concentrated In the hands of a tiny minority as opposed to the mass of people who actually made it happen. That wealth inequality existed prior to the Industrial Revolution is beside this point.

It is. A century or two after the IR.

The amounts of Co2 in the atmosphere were begun by the Industrial Revolution. That is why scientists refer to ‘pre-industrial’ levels. We are today reaping the seeds sown in the 18th century.

Anyway, my main point is that the Industrial Revolution was an inevitable and necessary historical development. It happened in England but could, with favourable historical happenstance, just as easily have happened in what is now the modern day Netherlands.

Capitalism has given us the ability to manufacture goods on a scale unimaginable in pre-industrial society and the ability to feed an exponentially greater amount of people. Yet all that came with a tragic metabolic rift between humankind and its environment, and instrumentalised nature to the extent that we are now facing environmental catastrophe. Although it has given us the ability to feed the whole of humanity, millions still die from hunger and disease. In that sense it does not represent any form of progress other than in a narrow technological sense. Humanitarian and social progress is every bit as important as technological process. That is what I believe is the important lessons to draw, rather than how it enabled Britain to become a world power that exploited, enslaved, impoverished and killed vast swathes of the population.

 

[Mick P]

Nobody is saying it was so I’m not sure what point you’re responding to.

The point I’m making is that the benefits of the Industrial Revolution were concentrated In the hands of a tiny minority as opposed to the mass of people who actually made it happen. That wealth inequality existed prior to the Industrial Revolution is beside this point.

The amounts of Co2 in the atmosphere were begun by the Industrial Revolution. That is why scientists refer to ‘pre-industrial’ levels. We are today reaping the seeds sown in the 18th century.

Anyway, my main point is that the Industrial Revolution was an inevitable and necessary historical development. It happened in England but could, with favourable historical happenstance, just as easily have happened in what is now the modern day Netherlands.

Capitalism has given us the ability to manufacture goods on a scale unimaginable in pre-industrial society and the ability to feed an exponentially greater amount of people. Yet all that came with a tragic metabolic rift between humankind and its environment, and instrumentalised nature to the extent that we are now facing environmental catastrophe. Although it has given us the ability to feed the whole of humanity, millions still die from hunger and disease. In that sense it does not represent any form of progress other than in a narrow technological sense. Humanitarian and social progress is every bit as important as technological process. That is what I believe is the important lessons to draw, rather than how it enabled Britain to become a world power that exploited, enslaved, impoverished and killed vast swathes of the population.

Despite all of the problems you have quite correctly mentioned, most of us are more healthy and living longer today. Average age of death in the UK for the year 1900 was 42, now we have almost doubled that.

I had two grandfathers who both died at 46 and a father who died at 51. I am still paddling around at 75. I have eaten out in three different restaurants this week, I can't imagine any of my forefathers ever having done that.

 

[Finnegan]

Despite all of the problems you have quite correctly mentioned, most of us are more healthy and living longer today. Average age of death in the UK for the year 1900 was 42, now we have almost doubled that.

I had two grandfathers who both died at 46 and a father who died at 51. I am still paddling around at 75. I have eaten out in three different restaurants this week, I can't imagine any of my forefathers ever having done that.

Agreed, this is largely good news for a certain class of baby boomers like ourselves, but not so good for much of the global south who are on the sharp end of both empire and climate breakdown.

We get terribly upset at a few thousand Afghanis, Vietnamese and Iraqis coming over the channel in leaky rubber boats. I hate to think what will happen when the whole of the global south will have no option but to migrate north. You and me will long be with the angels by then, but I worry for todays children and those yet to be born.

 

[paulfromcamden]

Despite all of the problems you have quite correctly mentioned, most of us are more healthy and living longer today. Average age of death in the UK for the year 1900 was 42, now we have almost doubled that.

Modern medicine is one of the best things about being alive in 2024. As a T1 diabetic I'd have popped my clogs fairly rapidly if I'd been born a hundred years earlier.

Though life expectancy didn't really increase during the period of the industrial revolution. As you suggest, we had to wait until the c20th for that.

Without digging into the stats I'm also wondering whether a rapid decrease in infant mortality has affected the overall life expectancy rate - another of the very best things about modern healthcare.

United Kingdom: life expectancy 1765-2020 | Statista

Life expectancy in the United Kingdom was below 39 years in the year 1765, and over the course of the next two and a half centuries, it is expected to have increased by more than double, to 81.1 by the year 2020.

www.statista.com

 

[stevec67]

The point I’m making is that the benefits of the Industrial Revolution were concentrated In the hands of a tiny minority as opposed to the mass of people who actually made it happen. That wealth inequality existed prior to the Industrial Revolution is beside this point.

no it isn't. The IR happened at a time when wealth was concentrated, during and after, guess what, wealth continued to be concentrated.

The amounts of Co2 in the atmosphere were begun by the Industrial Revolution. That is why scientists refer to ‘pre-industrial’ levels. We are today reaping the seeds sown in the 18th century.

we are reaping the harvest of 200 years of assiduous gardening.

Capitalism has given us the ability to manufacture goods on a scale unimaginable in pre-industrial society and the ability to feed an exponentially greater amount of people

and centrally heated homes, life expectancy twice that of pre development UK, transport, leisure time, health care, anaesthetic dentistry, instantaneous communication around the world, and maybe a few other things.

. Yet all that came with a tragic metabolic rift between humankind and its environment, and instrumentalised nature to the extent that we are now facing environmental catastrophe.

TIme for the politicians to act. They have known for long enough.

Although it has given us the ability to feed the whole of humanity, millions still die from hunger and disease

They do, and the reasons are political and not to do with Newcomen and his steam engine.

. In that sense it does not represent any form of progress other than in a narrow technological sense.

How about the device in front of you that allows us to have this discussion, and many others?

Humanitarian and social progress is every bit as important as technological process.

Indeed. The IR facilitated this. Not in and of itself, but the wealth it generated helped fuel the slow process. That we are currently well behind the curve with this is the fault of our 21st century politicians and not the invention of series manufacturing.

 

[PaulMB]

Yes shedloads of cheap coal also helped!

A small Greek and Roman elite enjoyed fabulous wealth. Most people did not. And they were both societies requiring the enslavement of people to function. I'm not keen on empires.

I'm no expert, but my impression is that the Roman Empire was generally beneficial to its inhabitants. Roads, amphitheaters, baths, housing, and not just in Rome, but all over the empire; Roman law, literature. Plus that great generator of wealth, flourishing trade, under the Pax Romana. The Romans were certainly ruthless when necessary, but I doubt that they enslaved or massacred more than anyone else did, or would have without the Romans.

 

[Seeker_UK]

I'm no expert, but my impression is that the Roman Empire was generally beneficial to its inhabitants. Roads, amphitheaters, baths, housing, and not just in Rome, but all over the empire; Roman law, literature. Plus that great generator of wealth, flourishing trade, under the Pax Romana.

Yeah, but besides the roads, amphitheaters, baths, housing, law, literature, wealth and flourishing trade, what have the Romans ever given us?

 

[gez]

decrease in infant mortality has affected the overall life expectancy rate

It's a major contributor to modern life expectancy figures. As is overall wealth and good sanitation. It's interesting to note that if you peruse cemetary's where rich wealthy people even as long ago as the 1700's lived you'll see a surprising number of people that lived in to their 70's and even the odd 80 something year old. So people were able to achieve such ages even 200 years ago but they all have one thing in common, they were very rich and had access to the best medical practice, food and sanitation that was available at the time, plus of course they had a fair helping of good luck. Point being, it's not because humans as a species have somehow miraculously changed intrinsically to be able to live to 80/90 years old in recent times.

 

[paulfromcamden]

I'm no expert, but my impression is that the Roman Empire was generally beneficial to its inhabitants. Roads, amphitheaters, baths, housing, and not just in Rome, but all over the empire; Roman law, literature. Plus that great generator of wealth, flourishing trade, under the Pax Romana. The Romans were certainly ruthless when necessary, but I doubt that they enslaved or massacred more than anyone else did, or would have without the Romans.

You're right that slavery was common in many societies in the ancient world and the Romans were hardly unique in that regard.

But I think it's worth remembering nonetheless that a large number of the population were enslaved - this article puts the figure at between 10-20% with a higher concentration in urban areas. They didn't really benefit from the roads, literature or Roman law - they had no rights, were listed as property and could be killed by their master without consequence. Just as the historical record of many societies is often biased towards the elite, so too are they often forgotten.

One difference of course if that slavery wasn't always permanent. It was often the consequence of debt and some enslaved people were able to buy their freedom.

Slavery in ancient Rome

Read about slavery in ancient Rome and its impact through an object highlighting the difficult lives of those enslaved.

www.britishmuseum.org

 

[gez]

Slavery is as old as man, certainly as old as human civilisation.

Ancient Greece had them; Mesopania/Sumeria had them; Ancient Egypt had them; Mayans had them; Aztecs had them.. the list goes on.

 

[Weekender]

Rife in Droylsden apparently.

 

[Weekender]

Sorry no that's swinging not slavery.

 

[Finnegan]

no it isn't. The IR happened at a time when wealth was concentrated, during and after, guess what, wealth continued to be concentrated.

we are reaping the harvest of 200 years of assiduous gardening.

and centrally heated homes, life expectancy twice that of pre development UK, transport, leisure time, health care, anaesthetic dentistry, instantaneous communication around the world, and maybe a few other things.


TIme for the politicians to act. They have known for long enough.

They do, and the reasons are political and not to do with Newcomen and his steam engine.

How about the device in front of you that allows us to have this discussion, and many others?

Indeed. The IR facilitated this. Not in and of itself, but the wealth it generated helped fuel the slow process. That we are currently well behind the curve with this is the fault of our 21st century politicians and not the invention of series manufacturing.

I think I’ve said all I have to say and we’re beginning to round in circles. I didn’t really expect a meeting of minds so I’ll continue to draw my knowledge of the Industrial Revolution and its effects from my previously cited sources. Ah’ll see thee.

 

[paulfromcamden]

It's interesting to note that if you peruse cemetary's where rich wealthy people even as long ago as the 1700's lived you'll see a surprising number of people that lived in to their 70's and even the odd 80 something year old. So people were able to achieve such ages even 200 years ago but they all have one thing in common, they were very rich and had access to the best medical practice, food and sanitation that was available at the time, plus of course they had a fair helping of good luck. Point being, it's not because humans as a species have somehow miraculously changed intrinsically to be able to live to 80/90 years old in recent times.

I've been researching our family tree. So far as I can tell from census records most of my ancestors were agricultural workers - which I guess going back 200 years would have been true of great swathes of the population. Lots of infant mortality. Lots of people dying in their 40s. But also a surprising number of people making it past 70. They most certainly weren't well off.